RAJENDRA BANA (A.Y. 2017-18) S/O SHRI RAM NIWAS BANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/7024/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02039532202523 May 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT (V. J.)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal, set aside the impugned order. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court has authoritatively decided issues concerning limitation and sanction. The matter was remitted back to the respondent Income Tax Officer to decide the objections afresh. The petitioners were granted liberty to file additional objections within two weeks. The petitioners or their representatives are directed to appear before the Income Tax Officer on 07.07.2025 at 11:00 A.M. The High Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajendra Bana, assails an order dated 22.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nagour, is the respondent. The petitioner argues that the proceedings are time-barred and that a Supreme Court judgment, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46, which authoritatively decided issues of limitation and sanction, was not available when the impugned order was passed. The petitioner also relies on Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. (dated 28.11.2024) to argue that the matter should be sent back for objections to be raised, even after an assessment order has been passed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings initiated under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are time-barred, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 469 ITR 46, which was not available at the time the impugned order was passed? Assessee's Contention: The proceedings are time-barred as the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal was not considered, and the principles laid down therein regarding limitation and sanction should apply retrospectively. The assessee also relies on Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. to argue for a remand for fresh consideration of objections. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue in the provided text.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7024/2025 Rajendra Bana (A.y. 2017-18) S/o Shri Ram Niwas Bana, Aged About 40 Years, R/o D-128, Gandhi Nagar Colony, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341510. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Nagour, In Front Of Br Mirdha College, Manasar Road, Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Chairman, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (Nct)- 110001 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14800/2022 Nitu Agarwal Wife Of Shri Manoj Agarwal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 30, Laxminaryanpuri, Surajpole, Jaipur - 302001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14801/2022 Manoj Agarwal Son Of Shri Navratan Agarwal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of B-215, Laxmi Narayan Puri, Surajpole, Jaipur - 302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur Having Its Address

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14814/2022 Navratan Agarwal Son Of Shri Radhy Shyam Agarwal, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of B-215, Laxminaryan Puri, Surajpole Gate, Jaipur - 302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Having Its Address At Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15508/2022 Sushil Kumar Kasliwal S/o Shri Ram Niwas Kasliwal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Anand Bhawan, Bapu Bazar, Chomu, Jaipur- 303702, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 7(1), Income Tax Department, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302015. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Pratyushi Mehta and Mr.Vedant Agarwal (Through VC) Mr.Siddharth Ranka with Mr.Rohan Chatter For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak with Mr.Palash Gupta Mr.Anuroop Singhi with Mr.N.S.Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 23/05/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7024/2025. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 22.07.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. 3. The issue raised in the present petition is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46, wherein the issue with regard to the limitation and sanction has been authoritatively decided. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said judgment was not available while passing the order and the proceedings are time barred.

[2025:RJ-JP:21789-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-7024/2025] 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited Vs. Office of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25288/2023 dated 28.11.2024, argued that inspite of passing of an assessment order, the matter was sent back for enabling the assessee to raise all the objections and contentions vis-a-vis the impugned notices. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside. The matters is remitted back to the respondent No.1 – Income Tax Officer to decide the objections afresh. 7. The writ petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file additional objections, if so desired, within two weeks from today. 8. Let the petitioners or through their representatives shall appear in the office of respondent No.1 on 07.07.2025 at 11.00 A.M. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/44-48

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →